Ending America’s Disastrous Role in Syria

America’s official narrative has sought to conceal the scale and calamitous consequences of US efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. That is understandable, because US efforts are in blatant violation of international law, which bars UN member states from supporting military action to overthrow other members' governments.

NEW YORK – Much of the carnage that has ravaged Syria during the past seven years is due to the actions of the United States and its allies in the Middle East. Now, faced with an alarming risk of a renewed escalation of fighting, it’s time for the United Nations Security Council to step in to end the bloodshed, based on a new framework agreed by the Council’s permanent members.

Here are the basics. In 2011, in the context of the Arab Spring, the US government, in conjunction with the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel, decided to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, even though overthrowing another country’s government amounts to a blatant violation of international law. We know that in 2012, if not earlier, President Barack Obama authorized the CIA to work with America’s allies in providing support to rebel forces composed of disaffected Syrians as well as non-Syrian fighters. US policymakers evidently expected Assad to fall quickly, as had occurred with the governments of Tunisia and Egypt in the early months of the Arab Spring.

The Assad regime is led by the minority Alawi Shia sect in a country where Alawites account for just 10% of the population, Sunni Muslims account for 75%, Christians make up 10%, and 5% are others, including Druze. The regional powers behind Assad’s regime include Iran and Russia, which has a naval base on Syria’s Mediterranean coastline.

This bothers me in your article: "Here are the basics. In 2011, in the context of the Arab Spring, the US government, in conjunction with the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel, decided to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, even though overthrowing another country’s government amounts to a blatant violation of international law. We know that in 2012..." You say the US became involved in 2012 ("if not sooner" ??) right after you say the revolts against Assad started in 2011. You are speculating something ENORMOUS: the USA STARTED the revolts to overthrow Assad. This kind of speculation of "if not sooner" is what starts wars too.

We DID arm and train rebels-- AFTER the revolts against Assad were started by Syrians. Unless you have EVIDENCE that we actually STARTED these protests and revolts, this is just a hypothesis-- and a dangerous hypothesis.

Most agree that we should not be in the middle east at all, anywhere. However, stick to the FACTS.

There are some problematic omissions and assumptions. Sachs writes that there were four reasons for the failure to overthrow Assad. 1. The fear of the Alawites, Christian and other minorities for Islamist rule. 2. the support of Russia and Iran. 3. the fact that the US focused on ISIS. 4. The division among the anti-Assad forces regarding the Kurds. What is omitted is that Assad, according to the renowned journalist Robert Fisk, enjoys the support of many Sunni Syrians. In fact, practically his entire army is build up out of Sunnis. The sectarian vision, analysis has been imposed by academics, repeated in the mainstream media and serves a military agenda of divide and conquer. It also hides the enormous popular support, independent of religion/ethnicity, Assad still enjoys inside the country. Secondly, there is the assumption that because of America’s focus on Isis not enough was done to topple Assad. However, the very existence of Isis “justified” American unwanted and illegal intervention into Syria. In contrast, Russia and Iran were invited by the sovereign country to fight the opposition groups created by the CIA, and further armed and trained by Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi-Arabia. Regarding the Kurdish question, the US knew the Turks would never allow a Kurdish independent enclave or even statehood in the North of Syria. The declaration that they were going to create a 40 000-strong army of Kurds in the North, provoked the Turkish invasion into Afrin, at the very same time the Astana peace-process was in full swing! A coincidence, don’t think so. It was part of a military strategy to boycott the peace-process and create as much chaos as possible to obtain regime changes, in the plural, not only in Syria, but also in Lebanon, Iraq and eventually Iran. Sachs rightly claims that “the US government mischaracterizes the war as a civil war among Syrians, rather than a proxy war involving the US, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Qatar.” He hopefully advises the US and its allies to accept the reality on the ground and “the persistence of Assad’s regime, despicable as it may be.” Everything though points in the opposite direction. Every step the Trump regime has taken, in partnership with the ultra-Zionist leadership of Israel, has been one of affirming its might and power in the region, to expand its influence and secure the American/Israeli status quo. A lot is at stake, in the field of energy and finance as the empire is losing ground. No, there won’t be less war but more war.

There are some problematic omissions and assumptions. Sachs writes that there were four reasons for the failure to overthrow Assad. 1. The fear of the Alawites, Christian and other minorities for Islamist rule. 2. the support of Russia and Iran. 3. the fact that the US focused on ISIS. 4. The division among the anti-Assad forces regarding the Kurds. What is omitted is that Assad, according to the renowned journalist Robert Fisk, enjoys the support of many Sunni Syrians. In fact, practically his entire army is build up out of Sunnis. The sectarian vision, analysis has been imposed by academics, repeated in the mainstream media and serves a military agenda of divide and conquer. It also hides the enormous popular support, independent of religion/ethnicity, Assad still enjoys inside the country. Secondly, there is the assumption that because of America’s focus on Isis not enough was done to topple Assad. However, the very existence of Isis “justified” American unwanted and illegal intervention into Syria. In contrast, Russia and Iran were invited by the sovereign country to fight the opposition groups created by the CIA, and further armed and trained by Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi-Arabia. Regarding the Kurdish question, the US knew the Turks would never allow a Kurdish independent enclave or even statehood in the North of Syria. The declaration that they were going to create a 40 000-strong army of Kurds in the North, provoked the Turkish invasion into Afrin, at the very same time the Astana peace-process was in full swing! A coincidence, don’t think so. It was part of a military strategy to boycott the peace-process and create as much chaos as possible to obtain regime changes, in the plural, not only in Syria, but also in Lebanon, Iraq and eventually Iran. Sachs rightly claims that “the US government mischaracterizes the war as a civil war among Syrians, rather than a proxy war involving the US, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Qatar.” He hopefully advises the US and its allies to accept the reality on the ground and “the persistence of Assad’s regime, despicable as it may be.” Everything though points in the opposite direction. Every step the Trump regime has taken, in partnership with the ultra-Zionist leadership of Israel, has been one of affirming its might and power in the region, to expand its influence and secure the American/Israeli status quo. A lot is at stake, in the field of energy and finance as the empire is losing ground. No, there won’t be less war but more war.

Never has this situation been more honestly and accurately described. I do suggest one edit however, to make it more clear to those with military experience where a term can mean different things to a civilian vs. a military person.

You write; "Following this show of force, US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis disingenuously stated that, “Obviously, we are not getting engaged in the Syrian civil war.”"

Jim Mattis wasn't being disingenuous. To a military person, "getting engaged" means the Russians (in this case) aren't returning fire on U.S. aircraft (or ships).

"...we are not getting engaged..." translates to "Russian forces aren't shooting back at U.S. aircraft that are dropping bombs on them or their allies, and also not launching separate attacks on other U.S. forces operating in and around Syria."

It's a way of saying that the conflict *didn't* escalate at the time due to the U.S. dropping bombs on Russians and / or Russian allies within the conflict zone.

Thanks for posting your excellent essay here at ProSyn! Always a great read.

Jeffrey D. Sachs urges the US to end its "disastrous role" in Syria, because there are already far too many cooks in the tiny ktichen there - Iran, Israel, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The US, together with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been adamant about Assad's removal ever since the onset of the war in 2011. However appalling the regime is in Syria, Assad is not going anywhere. The author names "four main reasons for the failure" to topple Assad. First, it is true that the Assad regime enjoys support not only from the Alawites (10% of the population) but "also Syrian Christians (10%) and other minorities (5%) "who feared a repressive Sunni Islamist regime." But as long as Assad remains in power, there is little hope that the Sunnis (75%) agree to a national reconciliation, since the socio-ethnic fabric has been torn beyond repair.Second, unlike the autocrats in Egytp, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen, who had been deposed - the Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi was lynched to death in his home town, Sirte - Assad remains in power, struggling to survive the 7-year long war - thanks to Iranian and Russian backing. Third, when the Islamic State set up its stronghold in Raqqa, Syria, the US "diverted significant resources to defeating it, rather than to toppling Assad." But since ISIS were driven out of Iraq and Syria, the US is focusing on backing its allies - the Syrian Democratic forces, led by the Kurds - to prevent Assad from regaining control of the whole country. Finally, the "anti-Assad forces have been deeply and chronically divided" and are backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia - two oil-rich Sunni states that embrace different versions of Islam. This pits Doha against Riyadh, especially when Qatar has a good relationship with Iran. Besides, Turkey is seeking to prevent the US-backed Kurdish fighters from holding onto territories on the Turkish border, fearing the embolenment of the Syrian Kurds would only inspire the Kurds in the east and southeast of Turkey to break away and fulfil their dream of a Greater Kurdistan, The author has always said the US is fighting proxy war against Iran and Russia in Syria. What started as a "secret war" by Obama in 2013, when the CIA began to arm and train Syrian rebels, with Saudi Arabia providing substantial financing of the armaments, the US has been shifting its focus several times. As the situation on the ground in Syria is fluid, the war is also getting murkier. Iran and Russia are remaining in Syria - an occupation approved by Assad - because his army suffers from exhaustion and would have been defeated without the backing of Iran and Russia. Iran is keen on having Syria as a land corridor from Tehran to Beirut, where the Iranian-backed militia group, Hezbollah is a powerful force in Lebanon. With an airbase and a naval base in Syria, Putin has finally cemented his influence in the Middle East. Israel's role in the fray aims at launching raids against Iranian targets in Syria, seeking to decimate Tehran's support of the Hezbollah, which had fought Israel in the 1980s. The problem is that the multi-layered conflicts and a panoply of actors fighting in Syria makes it resistant to international mediation. The war has a different dynamic with largely static front lines. The West has largely given up on Assad's removal, tacitly accepting his continued rule and leaving Russia, Iran and Turkey to dominate the region. International tensions threaten unpredictable new escalations with the US involvement - a mission creep - and Turkey’s recent incursion on the Syrian border to fight the US-backed Kurds. The possibilities of clashes between the US and Turkey - two NATO allies - as well as the US and Russia have also increased. It remains to be seen how long Iran, Russia and Turkey can afford to fight a war of attrition. The Kurds, and the anti-Assad forces may fight to the bitter end, even though Assad is eager to end the war and focus on rebuilding the country. Some European and Asian countries are said to be jockeying for contracts in the multibillion-dollar reconstruction, and Russia and Iran have already won infrastructure concessions. The question is how much longer and deadlier the war will be, before it ends - even without the US.

Factually correct article, well presented and well described. The conclusion or the proposed solution however, is not a sound one. Conflicting regional agendas can only be solved with the involvement and the goodwill of the regional players under the hospices of the US and Russia, being the main actors / funders in this conflict. Even this solution is not guaranteed, since the balance of power in the region has now shifted, especially after the most recent drowning of an Israeli fighter jet and been complicated by the recognition of Trump of Jerusalem being the Capital of the state of Israel and the instability of the government of Israel after the allegations against its PM. Regrettably, in view of these and other events, there can only be a continuation of this conflict until all the parties, with no exception, get drained militarily and financially.

A depressingly accurate analysis. Even under Obama the US had learned nothing from the failure of their policy of regime change in Iraq, and went on to double down by trying to remove Assad. The US instead should have pushed for a UN enforced no-fly zone over Syria which would have saved countless civilian lives, and kept Russia out of the conflict. Yet instead of following policies that would have protected civilians, the US and her allies stoked the conflict and flooded the region with weapons. The proxy war being fought now by external countries over control of the Middle East can only be resolved through new GlobalPartnership committed to bringing about peace instead of political gains.

Syria is the fourth "season" of President Obama's legacy series : "The Arab Spring". This set of episodes, which includes A/ Civil War, B/ ISIS rising, C/ The creation myth of a Kurdish Nation, D/ ISIS destroyed, and now E/ Turkey gobbling up northern Syria has shown up the exceptional wisdom of the British and French designers of the "Arab Nations", who consistently put a minority in power, in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Iraq, with the reasoning that this would avoid the massacre of the minorities.

Now Lebanon and Iraq has "gone" the way of the world, only Syria remains, and this is purely the result of the Russians wanting to keep their naval presence in the Med. Incidentally they have been led to assuring the survival of the vicious Assad dynastic-fascism, which itself has mean the non-elimination of the minorities !

One suspects that the notion that the Mid East is a complicated place is becoming more widely appreciated...

US overseas war adventures that develop permanence are typically ended due to US domestic angst about body bags returning home. In response to that drone robot warfare was developed to cut the US body bag count. This enables war to be neverending as far as domestic politics go and is a trap the US has built for itself. Other than cost, which is in reality easily absorbed, there is no US domestic political imperative to end war. In a proxy war with so many actors the chances of agreement are very low, keeping the US engaged. This is a direct outcome of Obama's strategy or lack of it - to maintain engagement and deploy drones. The quickest way to end a war is to lose it which also has negative issues for an entity that tries to position itself as having influence. It is not impossible but remains highly unlikely IMO there is early closure. If there is proxy actor closure there is both a resident bandit problem and a very significant infrastructure rebuild cost. There is no reason to think Putin will let go of Tartus and the question then is what cost is Putin prepared to pay to keep his only Med naval base. Just an opinion

The depressing reality is that both American and Russian voters are quite content to allow their regimes to kill arabs and other lessor mortals by the millions, including children, in the name of being a great nation and preventing 'terrorism'.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.